More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[ecco]

Ignorance is bliss.

Willful ignorance is the result of deep religious indoctrination.

Again -- when I look at animal life, even think about the soil, the sun and its effect on life on earth, no -- I no longer believe these things just happened. The proclamations about evolution no longer impress me, since I believe the reasoning is wrong.

As I said, your thinking and your beliefs are a direct result of your deep religious indoctrination.

No one has seen one form categorically turn into another.

That's a good thing. As you been told, repeatedly, if that were to happen it would disprove Evolution completely.

In fact, the science itself does not ascertain that since the investigation of the fossils do not show evolution.

As I said: Ignorance is bliss. Willful ignorance is the result of deep religious indoctrination.

 

[ecco]

Clearly the genetic composition of Adam and Eve changed once they did what God Almighty told them not to do. .

But God Almighty knew when He created them, that they would eat from the tree. He Knew! Before He created them to His exact specifications! Specifications that He had all of eternity to figure out. And then he blamed them for doing what He designed them to do and what He knew they would do.

 

[Bear Wild]

You are speaking of differences of things like gorillas and chimpanzees? Again -- I wasn't there -- I see no proof of transfering or movement of DNA going from one distinct form to another -- and I really do think at this point that the Bible is true. Even though, yes, there are parts hard to understand or contestable. I still think and believe that the definite basics of the Bible are overwhelmingly correct. That is right. That includes the formation of the first man and woman, how they were made -- Sometimes I reason that there are no reasons NOT to believe it, despite people's opinions. Many times places mentioned in the Bible were doubted even by scholars, but later archaeology uncovered these places. For instance, the city of Bablylon was never rebuilt, just as the scriptures foretold. Even though I wasn't there. I have come to believe the Bible.

No I was talking about one of the fundamental ideas of evolution to see if you understand it. In simpler terms - Does every human look alike and have the same physiology or are there variation in the appearance and physiology of humans?

We need to take this one step at a time to truly understand evolution otherwise you get lost in seeing the world only at one moment of time and misunderstand the concept.

As for the first man and woman, how exactly does the bible say they were formed? Is it any more likely that the first humans were make from clay that from wood as in the Norse myth. Explain how biologically (not mythologically) this could happen.

As for archeology and the bible, there are elements of historical events in the bible as there are with the Norse writings that can be supported by archeology but there are no archeological records supporting genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sometimes a rational argument will not work. Perhaps an emotional appeal will. Watch the video of this gorilla, she has a fairly young baby gorilla herself Still nursing it. She reacts in a very "human" way to another woman's baby:

 

[YoursTrue]

There you go yet again totally ignoring the specifics and the specific questions (#136) and merely asserting that it doesn't 'prove' evolution - and when will you ever learn that science doesn't do proof, it provides evidence? How many times do you need telling by how many different people before it sinks in?

Do you really expect or think someone should not believe that the evidence of whatever (and what is that, btw) is not used as proof that...the theory of evolution is true?

 

[YoursTrue]

No I was talking about one of the fundamental ideas of evolution to see if you understand it. In simpler terms - Does every human look alike and have the same physiology or are there variation in the appearance and physiology of humans?

We need to take this one step at a time to truly understand evolution otherwise you get lost in seeing the world only at one moment of time and misunderstand the concept.

Humans are humans and not ... lions. They stay humans. No matter skin color or hair changes by genetics. They stay as humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sometimes a rational argument will not work. Perhaps an emotional appeal will. Watch the video of this gorilla, she has a fairly young baby gorilla herself Still nursing it. She reacts in a very "human" way to another woman's baby:

There are certainty wonderful things we can see, like, and appreciate about other beings.

 

[Bear Wild]

Humans are humans and not ... lions. They stay humans. No matter skin color or hair changes by genetics. They stay as humans.

That is true. Humans and lions are different in appearance and behavior. Ironically they are less different in genetics than their physical appearance seems but my question is are all lions the same or are all humans the same.

You will never understand how different species branched and evolved unless you can start with the more simple concept that there is variation within a species. Can you see physical differences between humans? Do all humans look identical to you books description of adam and eve?

 

[Bear Wild]

There are certainty wonderful things we can see, like, and appreciate about other beings.

A second simple question is why can we find fossils of organisms that no longer are present on Earth today. Did Adam for example name each of the dinosaurs as described in genesis?

 

[YoursTrue]

No I was talking about one of the fundamental ideas of evolution to see if you understand it. In simpler terms - Does every human look alike and have the same physiology or are there variation in the appearance and physiology of humans?

The fact that every human (in general) does not look exactly like other humans does not mean, prove, or evidence evolution of the Darwinian kind. It means that we have diversity among human generation. And that has originally been programed by God in the body. In general I am talking about Adam and -- Eve. Not by evolutionary means as if God had no hand in diversity. Even if one doesn't believe that God had a hand in creation, certainly variation does not prove, or provide evidence for evolution of the Darwinian theory. There is a difference between evolution of the Darwinian theory and change of hair color or texture passed on by generations. If I have a litter of kittens and they don't look exactly alike, which they usually do not, but they do look like kittens, does that mean they evolved to be a litter of kittens? I am sure some would say yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

A second simple question is why can we find fossils of organisms that no longer are present on Earth today. Did Adam for example name each of the dinosaurs as described in genesis?

Here's a simple answer -- since dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct long before the Bible says Adam was created, I guess you can figure out that answer. (It's no.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that every human (in general) does not look exactly like other humans does not mean, prove, or evidence evolution of the Darwinian kind. It means that we have diversity among human generation. And that has originally been programed by God in the body. In general I am talking about Adam and -- Eve. Not by evolutionary means as if God had no hand in diversity. Even if one doesn't believe that God had a hand in creation, certainly variation does not prove, or provide evidence for evolution of the Darwinian theory. There is a difference between evolution of the Darwinian theory and change of hair color or texture passed on by generations. If I have a litter of kittens and they don't look exactly alike, which they usually do not, but they do look like kittens, does that mean they evolved to be a litter of kittens? I am sure some would say yes.

Instead of denying evidence you should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is not that hard of a concept to understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a simple answer -- since dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct long before the Bible says Adam was created, I guess you can figure out that answer. (It's no.)

I am confused. The Bible doesn't really mention dinosaurs at all, let alone anything about them dying before the formation of Adam. Where do you get all this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is true. Humans and lions are different in appearance and behavior. Ironically they are less different in genetics than their physical appearance seems but my question is are all lions the same or are all humans the same.

You will never understand how different species branched and evolved unless you can start with the more simple concept that there is variation within a species. Can you see physical differences between humans? Do all humans look identical to you books description of adam and eve?

The Bible doesn't really go into a detailed description of Adam and Eve, but I think most believers of European descent believe they looked like white Europeans. Maybe blondes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact that every human (in general) does not look exactly like other humans does not mean, prove, or evidence evolution of the Darwinian kind. It means that we have diversity among human generation. And that has originally been programed by God in the body. In general I am talking about Adam and -- Eve. Not by evolutionary means as if God had no hand in diversity. Even if one doesn't believe that God had a hand in creation, certainly variation does not prove, or provide evidence for evolution of the Darwinian theory. There is a difference between evolution of the Darwinian theory and change of hair color or texture passed on by generations. If I have a litter of kittens and they don't look exactly alike, which they usually do not, but they do look like kittens, does that mean they evolved to be a litter of kittens? I am sure some would say yes.

Variation is necessarily evidence of evolution, but it is the source material on which natural selection acts. It is evidence of the starting point of what you are calling Darwinian evolution. Believe it or not. That will not change the facts, since they are not predicated on whether you believe or not.

Again, evolution is the theory that addresses the origin of species, change over time in populations, common ancestry and includes selection. You keep mixing it with the origin of life which is currently still not known and remains as a set of different hypotheses that have not been or not been fully tested.

 

[YoursTrue]

But God Almighty knew when He created them, that they would eat from the tree. He Knew! ...

And you know this how?
He obviously knew they could disobey Him. He put the ability to obey or disobey Him within them. Otherwise He would not have given them a choice. You bring up an interesting point, which in fact, involves the theme of the whole Bible. Yet although God gave them a CHOICE, some insist that God knew or programmed it in them to sin. No, He did not know beforehand that they would sin. In fact, that is why Jesus came to the earth from heaven, living as a human being (not a bear or lion) What was in the possibility of action of Adam and Eve is that they could have sinned. Or they could have remained obedient. (By the way, many if not most people do not want to do. But they don't have control over whether they will die or not.) Obviously God knew that part. But He did not know beforehand. He is God and can know beforehand what He wants to know. He is never deceived. And whatever is done againt His will is something He can and will remedy. No, it is not written that He knew Adam would sin like that, deliberately. But He certainly knew the possibility. Otherwise, He would not have told Adam that he must not eat from that tree, otherwise -- if he did -- he would die.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact that every human (in general) does not look exactly like other humans does not mean, prove, or evidence evolution of the Darwinian kind. It means that we have diversity among human generation. And that has originally been programed by God in the body. In general I am talking about Adam and -- Eve. Not by evolutionary means as if God had no hand in diversity. Even if one doesn't believe that God had a hand in creation, certainly variation does not prove, or provide evidence for evolution of the Darwinian theory. There is a difference between evolution of the Darwinian theory and change of hair color or texture passed on by generations. If I have a litter of kittens and they don't look exactly alike, which they usually do not, but they do look like kittens, does that mean they evolved to be a litter of kittens? I am sure some would say yes.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that variation was programed into humans at creation? Are there any passages in the Bible that you are referring too that mention this. I don't know of any, but I have only read it completely one time long ago and maybe I forgot those parts.

The changes passed on through generations is what you are calling Darwinian evolution. What you have been describing as evolution is not the evolution being discussed here. I think what you claim as evolution is part of the X-Men origin stories or something similar.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you know this how?
He obviously knew they could disobey Him. He put the ability to obey or disobey Him within them. Otherwise He would not have given them a choice. You bring up an interesting point, which in fact, involves the theme of the whole Bible. Yet although God gave them a CHOICE, some insist that God knew or programmed it in them to sin. No, He did not know beforehand that they would sin. In fact, that is why Jesus came to the earth from heaven, living as a human being (not a bear or lion) What was in the possibility of action of Adam and Eve is that they could have sinned. Or they could have remained obedient. (By the way, many if not most people do not want to do. But they don't have control over whether they will die or not.) Obviously God knew that part. But He did not know beforehand. He is God and can know beforehand what He wants to know. He is never deceived. And whatever is done againt His will is something He can and will remedy. No, it is not written that He knew Adam would sin like that, deliberately. But He certainly knew the possibility. Otherwise, He would not have told Adam that he must not eat from that tree, otherwise -- if he did -- he would die.

Curious. Why do you mention that Jesus did not come to Earth as a bear or a lion. Is someone claiming that?

Why are you so sure that God could not know that Adam and Eve would sin? Aren't you placing limits on God?

It sounds like you are saying God knew beforehand and that God did not know beforehand. What you wrote here is very confusing. Are you saying that God prevents His knowing in some way? What part of the Bible discusses that?

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible doesn't really go into a detailed description of Adam and Eve, but I think most believers of European descent believe they looked like white Europeans. Maybe blondes.

And from what I have read, that is true about white European descent. (Which is also sadly interwoven in the history of Darwinian evolution theory, later rather rejected by the changing ideas of racism and evolution.) However, a considered examination of the Bible does not bear that out about the superiority of white European racial elements, but you're right about that, racial superiority is certainly misunderstood by many claiming to be Bible believers, and that theory had been linked by evolutionists in the past.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And from what I have read, that is true about white European descent. (Which is also sadly interwoven in the history of Darwinian evolution theory, later rather rejected by the changing ideas of racism and evolution.) However, a considered examination of the Bible does not bear that out about the superiority of white European racial elements, but you're right about that, racial superiority is certainly misunderstood by many claiming to be Bible believers, and that theory had been linked by evolutionists in the past.

What are you getting at here? No one is claiming that the theory did not arise from a culture that viewed non-white people as somehow inferior. However, the theory is still valid and cannot be dismantled based on the source culture of its origin. I wonder what the culture was for the guy that came up with the theory on gravity? Probably better throw that one out too based on your strict criteria.